C
Ceil-1
Guest
Your response told me everything I need to know. I wasn’t on drugs, and I am not given over to psychosis, so, it was either my imagination, or I am on the right track as far as the LDS church is concerned. Very weird.
- Status
E
Eden
Guest
Just reading the background about Joseph Smith and his “stone gazing” is enough to debunk Mormonism, then of course. Then, of course, there is the whole issue of Kolob.
“Joseph Smith, Credible Prophet?”:
catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0304fea3.asp
“Joseph Smith, Credible Prophet?”:
catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0304fea3.asp
P
PaulDupre
Guest
Joseph Smith was an obvious fraud. He wasn’t even a very clever fraud. His “Book of Abraham” claims to be a translation of an Egyptian document written by Abraham “by his own hand on papyrus”. Joseph came into possession of the papyrus when he purchased an Egyptian mummy from a traveling carnival show. With the mummy was a papyrus. Joseph claimed to know by revelation that the papyrus was a long-lost scripture written by Abraham. (Wow, such luck!)
So Joseph proceeded to “translate” the hieroglyphic characters, spinning a wild yarn about gods living on other planets. He even interpreted the diagrams on the papyrus. What did he have to lose? At that time no one could translate Egyptian hieroglyphs.
Poor Joseph never anticipated that someday mankind would learn to translate Egyptian hieroglyphs. But when the Rosetta Stone was discovered, that’s exactly what happened. Joseph was so cocky, he hadn’t even arranged for an angel to take the papyrus to heaven, as happened with the “gold plates” of the Book of Mormon. So when egyptologists examined the papyrus, they discovered that it was a common funerary document, like The Book of the Dead, that was buried with every mummy. It contains prayers and instructions for crossing into the Egyptian land of the dead. It had nothing to do with Abraham or Mormon gods living on planets circling Kolob.
That debacle alone proves that Joseph Smith was a miserable lying fraud.
Paul
So Joseph proceeded to “translate” the hieroglyphic characters, spinning a wild yarn about gods living on other planets. He even interpreted the diagrams on the papyrus. What did he have to lose? At that time no one could translate Egyptian hieroglyphs.
Poor Joseph never anticipated that someday mankind would learn to translate Egyptian hieroglyphs. But when the Rosetta Stone was discovered, that’s exactly what happened. Joseph was so cocky, he hadn’t even arranged for an angel to take the papyrus to heaven, as happened with the “gold plates” of the Book of Mormon. So when egyptologists examined the papyrus, they discovered that it was a common funerary document, like The Book of the Dead, that was buried with every mummy. It contains prayers and instructions for crossing into the Egyptian land of the dead. It had nothing to do with Abraham or Mormon gods living on planets circling Kolob.
That debacle alone proves that Joseph Smith was a miserable lying fraud.
Paul
Z
zerinus
Guest
No; it is only very true. Weird experiences come from the beholder, not from us.
zerinus
S
sterryfamily
Guest
amazing
Z
zerinus
Guest
Isn’t it just!
R
rmcmullan
Guest
Aww, too bad this post is starting to degenerate, I think it’s a pretty good question. Even though I am Mormon (previously Catholic), I tend to belive what was stated in earlier posts, that the RC church pretty much kept Western civilization together after the fall of Rome.
But, isn’t it possible that things got off track over time, after the early church was established? Certainly the Protestants thought so. Or maybe they were just seeking a “lower law”, something with a easier set of rules. But if there’s any such thing as priesthood authority, if people need to be ordained to the priesthood, then all the Protestants are lost. That’s why they claim their authority comes from the Bible. It would be a much more convincing claim if they all agreed what it said.
So The Catholics claim their authority from Peter and the Mormons claim their authority from John the Baptist who came back as a resurrected being and ordained the church founders. So far as I know, they could have done this many times throughout the Dark Ages. But at least they make the same claim to authority.
The belief that much of the original Christian teachings were lost or changed and the whole concept of a Restoration is central to Mormon theology. For a Catholic to accept that, they need to buy into the fact that they can’t trust the church leadership. And there are so many teachings in society today that are directly opposed to Christianity, it’s hard to believe that they’re not being faithful to God’s word.
But, isn’t it possible that things got off track over time, after the early church was established? Certainly the Protestants thought so. Or maybe they were just seeking a “lower law”, something with a easier set of rules. But if there’s any such thing as priesthood authority, if people need to be ordained to the priesthood, then all the Protestants are lost. That’s why they claim their authority comes from the Bible. It would be a much more convincing claim if they all agreed what it said.
So The Catholics claim their authority from Peter and the Mormons claim their authority from John the Baptist who came back as a resurrected being and ordained the church founders. So far as I know, they could have done this many times throughout the Dark Ages. But at least they make the same claim to authority.
The belief that much of the original Christian teachings were lost or changed and the whole concept of a Restoration is central to Mormon theology. For a Catholic to accept that, they need to buy into the fact that they can’t trust the church leadership. And there are so many teachings in society today that are directly opposed to Christianity, it’s hard to believe that they’re not being faithful to God’s word.
C
Ceil-1
Guest
Interesting. The liturgy reading today was as follows:
“Every high priest is taken from among men and made their representative before God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. He is able to deal patiently with the ignorant and erring, for he himself is beset by weakness and so, for this reason must make sin offerings for himself as well as for the people. No one takes this honor upon himself but only when called by God just as Aaron was.” (Hebrews 6: 1-4)
This is written in the New Testament, in the present tense. It also admits to the weakness of the priest admitting later in the passage that the only perfect priest was Jesus.
In Matthew 23:1 Jesus says the following:
Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, ‘The
scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice’."
Jesus recognized the authority of the Pharisees in spite of their failure to live up to their office. I would say to you that if you search the Scriptures you will not find a loophole to justify rebelling against God’s Church.
I find it interesting that you don’t have a defense for the oddities of your religion. I would say that it must be a purely emotional decision to become Mormon because it would certainly take an enormous amount of faith in Joseph Smith to believe it. I find it curious that people will put more faith in him than in Jesus Christ.
“Every high priest is taken from among men and made their representative before God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. He is able to deal patiently with the ignorant and erring, for he himself is beset by weakness and so, for this reason must make sin offerings for himself as well as for the people. No one takes this honor upon himself but only when called by God just as Aaron was.” (Hebrews 6: 1-4)
This is written in the New Testament, in the present tense. It also admits to the weakness of the priest admitting later in the passage that the only perfect priest was Jesus.
In Matthew 23:1 Jesus says the following:
Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, ‘The
scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice’."
Jesus recognized the authority of the Pharisees in spite of their failure to live up to their office. I would say to you that if you search the Scriptures you will not find a loophole to justify rebelling against God’s Church.
I find it interesting that you don’t have a defense for the oddities of your religion. I would say that it must be a purely emotional decision to become Mormon because it would certainly take an enormous amount of faith in Joseph Smith to believe it. I find it curious that people will put more faith in him than in Jesus Christ.
R
rmcmullan
Guest
You won’t get any argument from me regarding the necessity of a priesthood. Hebrews 7 is all about it and there’s reams of it in the Old Testament, an entire tribe, the Levites, were set aside as priests. Protestants will refute this but that’s mostly because they have no claim to it, not because there isn’t a clear example of it. Really, the references to an established priesthood in both the Old and New Testaments are too numerous to mention.
Now the original post was about the gates of hell would never prevail against Christ’s church. I would also have to agree with you on that being true but in a more general sense. Daniel also prophesied about a rock that would fill up the whole earth and never be cast down. Revelations talks about a time when New Jerusalem would come from the sky and satan would be bound for a thousand years and Isaiah about a time when the lion would lie down with the lamb. Eventually, the earth will be sanctified, there’s lots of discussion from the prophets and apostles on that point. But I’m not as sure that it has a specific meaning regarding the establishment of the Catholic church directly reflecting the Church of God. There’s lots of bad people inside of any church and lots of good people outside them. So I am thinking more along the lines of the church of God and the church of His enemies. It’s the Church of God that will prevail. Sorry to say this, but I just don’t think this was directed at the RC church. I’m not saying that it’s unreasonable to think this, I just can’t make that conclusion.
Now the original post was about the gates of hell would never prevail against Christ’s church. I would also have to agree with you on that being true but in a more general sense. Daniel also prophesied about a rock that would fill up the whole earth and never be cast down. Revelations talks about a time when New Jerusalem would come from the sky and satan would be bound for a thousand years and Isaiah about a time when the lion would lie down with the lamb. Eventually, the earth will be sanctified, there’s lots of discussion from the prophets and apostles on that point. But I’m not as sure that it has a specific meaning regarding the establishment of the Catholic church directly reflecting the Church of God. There’s lots of bad people inside of any church and lots of good people outside them. So I am thinking more along the lines of the church of God and the church of His enemies. It’s the Church of God that will prevail. Sorry to say this, but I just don’t think this was directed at the RC church. I’m not saying that it’s unreasonable to think this, I just can’t make that conclusion.
T
Tmaque
Guest
The key lies in Jesus’ declaration that Peter was “the rock” upon which his church would be built. Ask any LDS what man in LDS history was their church built upon. Will they say Peter? Of course not. Ask a Catholic this question, if they’ve been properly catechized the answer will roll right off their tongue. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. He was the first among the apostles. He was the rock upon which the Catholic Church was built. If the Church fails Jesus is a liar…period. To say Jesus simply meant that his church would not ultimately fail does violence to the text. That’s not at all what he said.
R
rmcmullan
Guest
His church. Is His church the Church of God or the Catholic Church? You don’t see any difference, I do. Hopefully there’ll be a large portion of the Catholic Church in the Church of God but I don’t expect all of them.
Also, sorry for poking at a sensitive subject, but if you’ve read much of the Old Testament you’ll see that the Jews fell into apostacy almost right after their nation was established. If they had a good king, they did okay, if they had a wicked king, up went the altars to Baal and Ashteroth. Is it really so hard to believe that any church could drift?
Also, sorry for poking at a sensitive subject, but if you’ve read much of the Old Testament you’ll see that the Jews fell into apostacy almost right after their nation was established. If they had a good king, they did okay, if they had a wicked king, up went the altars to Baal and Ashteroth. Is it really so hard to believe that any church could drift?
T
Tmaque
Guest
That’s a great question. Is it really so hard to believe that the LDS Church could apostatize?
Jesus promised his Church(built on Peter) would not fail. He also promised he would be with his church until the end of time. That leaves no room for a total apostasy. This promise of Christ, coupled with the continuity of doctrine and practice in matters of faith and morals, tells me that Christ’s church is alive and well in the world today. If there was evidence of doctrinal corruption you might have the beginnings of argument, but there simply is none.
LDS claim that there has been this pattern of apostasy and restoration from the beginning until the LDS Church came along. Now, of course, all that is over. So, do we believe Christ or some johnny come lately “prophet”. My money is on Jesus Christ and his Church.
R
rmcmullan
Guest
Sigh. I am getting tired of repeating myself. Let me put it very bluntly: I do not equate the RC church with Christ’s church. I am not surprised that you do. Heck, we do too.
C
Ceil-1
Guest
I am discerning a tendency to rationalize a presumption that the Catholic Church is not the Church as opposed to accepting the Church established by Jesus and putting faith in Him and His promise to preserve it from destruction. The analogy of the apostate Israelites is not an accurate analogy, as they continued to be the people of His Covenant. The Covenant was never broken; He chastised them until they repented. He never divorced Himself from them, the way people have divorced themselves from the Church. If anything, that is the parallel I would give it. The original Protestants divorced themselves from the Church, then rationalized it by saying the Church leaders were mean. That may be true, but that is their problem now, not the faithful who suffered under them.
You presume up front that the Catholic Church isn’t the Church. What if it is, and you are wrong? If we are wrong, we have lost nothing, because we have been faithful to Christ and His Scriptures. If you are wrong, you are guilty of outright rebellion to God’s established authority over you. At worst it is outright apostasy because you have abandoned even the belief in Jesus as God. I can almost understand being a Protestant, but not to believe in Jesus as Second Person of the Trinity? I would not want to be in your position, quite frankly. Any cursory study of the Scriptures, particularly the Old Testament reveals God’s insistence on obedience to His authority regardless of the inconveniences. I won’t even go into what is said about those who preach a false Gospel. Perish the thought.
You presume up front that the Catholic Church isn’t the Church. What if it is, and you are wrong? If we are wrong, we have lost nothing, because we have been faithful to Christ and His Scriptures. If you are wrong, you are guilty of outright rebellion to God’s established authority over you. At worst it is outright apostasy because you have abandoned even the belief in Jesus as God. I can almost understand being a Protestant, but not to believe in Jesus as Second Person of the Trinity? I would not want to be in your position, quite frankly. Any cursory study of the Scriptures, particularly the Old Testament reveals God’s insistence on obedience to His authority regardless of the inconveniences. I won’t even go into what is said about those who preach a false Gospel. Perish the thought.
R
rmcmullan
Guest
I do not offer the reference to the problems the early Isrealites had as an analogy, all anolgies eventually break down. I was trying for a principle. If all men fall short of the glory of God, and some of those belong to a church, there’s bound to be problems in any church. And their priests are available to consel their parishioners as he sees fit or as they request. But since all men are sinners, there’s always the danger that any group of them will go too far. Adam was taught by God but somewhere between then and the flood, something went badly wrong. So from where comes the Divinity of the RC church if not from its members?
Is the Divinity of the RC church based on it’s leaders? As far as I understand it, and feel free to fill in my gaps of understanding, the answer is yes. The Pope is considered to be holy enough that he will not lead the church astray, right? If the church as a whole is imperfect, there needs to be a way to reclaim and replenish it from time to time. It’s much rarer but even its leaders are known to stray from time to time. Take Martin Luther as an example!
Is the Divinity of the RC church based on it’s leaders? As far as I understand it, and feel free to fill in my gaps of understanding, the answer is yes. The Pope is considered to be holy enough that he will not lead the church astray, right? If the church as a whole is imperfect, there needs to be a way to reclaim and replenish it from time to time. It’s much rarer but even its leaders are known to stray from time to time. Take Martin Luther as an example!
C
Ceil-1
Guest
The authority of the Pope comes from his office, not his holiness. No one is truly holy but Jesus. The Pope’s job is to preserve the deposit of faith passed down from the apostles. That is what he does. The disciplines he puts forth are much the same as ours are as parents for our children. Are we always right? f course not. Do we go overboard? Are we sometimes too permissive? Sure, but we represent the authority of God as parents. God honors that and requires obedience to parents good and bad. The Pope is a spiritual parent, so to speak. We obey him the same way we obey our own parents.
Case in point is Paul VI’s went into his chambers to write permission to use birth control. He was convinced that it was okay, and prepared to give the go ahead. When the time came, and he prayerfully began, he literally could not physically do it. What came out was Humanii Generis, actually prophesying abortion and euthanasia and a horrible, violent world if we went ahead and allowed it. Boy was he right. He could not allow it because the Holy Spirit prevented him and inspired him at that point in time. That is an example of the Holy Spirit preserving the Church from error. It doesn’t matter if every bishop and lay person in the world felt that it was okay. The Holy Spirit told him no. The guy suffered mightily for this. An assasination attempt was made and he died a hated man.
That is just the tip of the iceberg. The stories of how God preserved the Church couldn’t be made up, they are so amazing. I decided to investigate these things for myself because they are not taught. I thank God every day that, despite my straying, I did not end up on the wrong side of things. People make assumptions without thoroughly investigating what is really going on around them. It’s like voting. People go out to vote and have no idea who the people are or what they stand for because they were too lazy to bother. As a result we end up with corruption and chicanery.
No, most leaders in any church are sinful men. That is why God had to send Jesus. Don’t you understand?
Case in point is Paul VI’s went into his chambers to write permission to use birth control. He was convinced that it was okay, and prepared to give the go ahead. When the time came, and he prayerfully began, he literally could not physically do it. What came out was Humanii Generis, actually prophesying abortion and euthanasia and a horrible, violent world if we went ahead and allowed it. Boy was he right. He could not allow it because the Holy Spirit prevented him and inspired him at that point in time. That is an example of the Holy Spirit preserving the Church from error. It doesn’t matter if every bishop and lay person in the world felt that it was okay. The Holy Spirit told him no. The guy suffered mightily for this. An assasination attempt was made and he died a hated man.
That is just the tip of the iceberg. The stories of how God preserved the Church couldn’t be made up, they are so amazing. I decided to investigate these things for myself because they are not taught. I thank God every day that, despite my straying, I did not end up on the wrong side of things. People make assumptions without thoroughly investigating what is really going on around them. It’s like voting. People go out to vote and have no idea who the people are or what they stand for because they were too lazy to bother. As a result we end up with corruption and chicanery.
No, most leaders in any church are sinful men. That is why God had to send Jesus. Don’t you understand?
B
Brad_Haas
Guest
Um, what is your source for that Paul VI story? I don’t think he really intended to okay it, but rather his comission’s recommendation was that he should.
R
rmcmullan
Guest
I rather enjoyed the story about the pope and I was with you until you said:
No, most leaders in any church are sinful men. That is why God had to send Jesus. Don’t you understand?
Jesus isn’t here anymore and the Pope is and even the Pope is capable of sin. Jesus holds the keys of Death and Hades, i.e he will bring about the resurrection and the judgement. That’s why he was sent, as a Savior. But how does that keep the Pope honest?
No, most leaders in any church are sinful men. That is why God had to send Jesus. Don’t you understand?
Jesus isn’t here anymore and the Pope is and even the Pope is capable of sin. Jesus holds the keys of Death and Hades, i.e he will bring about the resurrection and the judgement. That’s why he was sent, as a Savior. But how does that keep the Pope honest?
P
PaulDupre
Guest
I think she meant that The Father sent Jesus because we are all sinners, including the Pope. Jesus had to come so that sinners could be saved through repentance because of Jesus’ atoning sacrifice, whether they are Popes or not. Being a Pope or a bishop or a priest or a minister will not save a person. Only Jesus can do that. I think that’s what she meant.
Paul
Paul
A
Alma147
Guest
I’ve read most of the messages, but didn’t see a response from a Mormon. If there was one, I’m sorry for reading too quickly. The initial statement here asked,
Consider the possibility that you may be looking at this passage backwards. From the way you have presented this that you appear to believe that this passage teaches that the “gates of hell” will never be able to overcome the Church. I think if you analyze it carefully, you’ll see that there is another, perhaps more consistent interpretation. First of all, we should define the terms. Gates are never offensive weapons. Gates are used to keep out intruders rather than to attack. For example, Jerusalem was a walled city, and if someone were to attack the city, they would go to the gates and try to knock them down. If the gates don’t prevail against the attacker, it means they fall down. What then are the “gates of hell?” Hell, in this instance comes from the Greek “hades,” meaning the place of departed spirits. The gates of hades weren’t going to attack the Church, it was the Church that would attack hades and its gates could not withstand the attack. It doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not the Church remained on the earth but it does have to do with the Church knocking down the gates of hades.
Alma
I think that you’ve missed another option: c) you’re using a faulty interpretation of Jesus’ statement to Peter.
Consider the possibility that you may be looking at this passage backwards. From the way you have presented this that you appear to believe that this passage teaches that the “gates of hell” will never be able to overcome the Church. I think if you analyze it carefully, you’ll see that there is another, perhaps more consistent interpretation. First of all, we should define the terms. Gates are never offensive weapons. Gates are used to keep out intruders rather than to attack. For example, Jerusalem was a walled city, and if someone were to attack the city, they would go to the gates and try to knock them down. If the gates don’t prevail against the attacker, it means they fall down. What then are the “gates of hell?” Hell, in this instance comes from the Greek “hades,” meaning the place of departed spirits. The gates of hades weren’t going to attack the Church, it was the Church that would attack hades and its gates could not withstand the attack. It doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not the Church remained on the earth but it does have to do with the Church knocking down the gates of hades.
Alma
- Status